Expelled

Hey! Cool! That's exactly what I've been arguing in every single forum that discusses evolution here. Science and Religion don't have to be mutually exclusive. That's actually really interesting, that scientists have lost their jobs over believing that there's a creator, or a grand designer of the universe...interesting.

I know. It's exactly what I've been saying all along also Cedarbird. Quite a few times I've also mentioned that my son has to be careful what he says right now because he's just starting out and he can lose his career over this. He keeps his mouth shut for exactly the reasons cited in this movie clip.

It is pretty interesting when you really understand what's going on here.

Looks interesting. ID Scientists losing their jobs for believing in something they feel they have evidence for, eh?

What happens to scientists that believe in evolution and feel they have evidence for that?

Oh that's right. Eternal damnation. But by golly, they get to keep their jobs! Yay!

Seems like the ID guys are getting a good deal to me.

Interesting! Quite a conspiracy theory feel to it though!

Actually not heard it put exactly that way Ock, but you do have a point here.



It is interesting I think. It's not news to me really but it does seem interesting a movie is being made about this. I'm wondering really, if there isn't a catch in here somewhere? It's almost too good to believe from a Christian POV so I'm thinking maybe we're seeing a hook here only to bash the Christians in the end.

Maybe it's just the skeptic in me. I'll watch it tho unless I hear that it's only a trick. Time will tell. I may send this to my son to see if he's heard anything about this.

I think the slant here is law. Ben Stein WAS a lawyer before he was an entertainer, after all.

Personally, I'm all for ID being taught in school - in a Religious studies classroom, though - not a science classroom. That's where the "Christian bash" aka showing that ID isn't science may come in. Legally speaking, a science teacher shouldn't lose his/her job for believing any particular thing. But if they get paid to teach science, and they teach ID instead, then they aren't doing their jobs, and that would be grounds for dismissal.

I suppose after losing so badly in Dover the ID believers had to try something else.

ID is not science if you think it is you do understand what science is period. Maybe they lost there jobs because the don’t comprehend there chosen field.

I’ll give you an example that proves ID is not science. The discovery of DNA completely revolutionized the field of biology what did the ID proponents do with this new information? Nothing, it changed nothing. ID will remain the same no matter what new information comes along and that’s faith.

Here’s a good podcast from Brian Dunning explaining basically how the ID movement is killing faith.
Link

Personally, I'm all for ID being taught in school - in a Religious studies classroom, though - not a science classroom. That's where the "Christian bash" aka showing that ID isn't science may come in. Legally speaking, a science teacher shouldn't lose his/her job for believing any particular thing. But if they get paid to teach science, and they teach ID instead, then they aren't doing their jobs, and that would be grounds for dismissal.

I agree.

~Zoo

Just a sidenote.........I don't believe in the ID theory any more than I do the Evolutionist's therory. 

Do I think this one (ID) is better because they at least acknowledge God?  Not really.  To me a lie is a lie, no matter how big.

The ID theory is nothing more than people trying to marry Darwin and Moses together, trying to make it all fit together and it doesn't. 

As far as ID being taught as Religion...I would also like to see Evolution taught as Religion too.  I think they are both belief systems that could be taught in the same class.  Neither can prove the beginning of life because neither can produce eyewittness evidence  to the origins of man. 

 

 

Why can't it? Why can't the evidence for evolution and the belief in a divine creator, God, work together to form a nice little workable truth?

Accidentally posted twice. Sorry.

Because of the wording in scripture. It's very clear that a day meant a 24 hour period. The word was olam and used as it was in the Hebrew it always meant 24 hours. Also even the most liberal scholars including a liberal translation of the bible will honestly acknowledge at least the writer of Genesis (Moses) believed it was a 24 hr period of time.

"The ID theory is nothing more than people trying to marry Darwin and Moses together, trying to make it all fit together and it doesn't."

It is also an attempt by creationist to get creationism taught in public schools as science.

"As far as ID being taught as Religion...I would also like to see Evolution taught as Religion too. I think they are both belief systems that could be taught in the same class. Neither can prove the beginning of life because neither can produce eyewittness evidence to the origins of man"

I’m sure you’re a very nice person and I don’t wish to be cruel but there’s an entire section of your brain that is not functioning. I’m not surprised as it is a requirement to be a fundamentalist.

I don’t understand why you would want or need science to affirm anything written in scripture. As soon as you do your saying you’re not sure if the Bible is inerrant. Faith is believing in something despite the evidence. Trust is believing in something because of the evidence. You don’t have faith in science you have trust in what the evidence is telling you.

Evolution isn't a belief system. There are no teachings related to it in any way aside from what it contains, an explanation of itself. Evolution is a process, not a belief. I don't recall anyone worshipping evolution or the idea behind evolution or performing any prayers or ceremonies about evolution.

~Zoo

No.  He's very good at what he's doing.  He's been told by his advisor board that he's one of the most promising candidates they've had in this field in years.  After a three hour oral exam in front of six Ph.D's in various fields after extensive questioning one of the Cardiac Doctor's went to my son's boss and said if all his students were like him, he'd have the best lab in the world.  Pretty impressive.  So , no he's exactly where he should be.  He also just received a very impressive grant.  You should know how hard it is to get one of these. 

I don't need Science to affirm scripture.  Scripture actually affirms science.  I've already said the bible does not argue or debate the existence of God.  It already expects the reader to know and believe there is a God.  Faith is described in scripture as the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.  Faith gives reality and proof of things unseen, treating them as if they were already objects of sight rather than of hope.

and I don't do this.  I don't bash you, even if done in a sorta apologetic way.  This happens all the time here.  Instead of going after the argument fully, stabs are taking at my character.  I don't see the need to do this.  It's not productive and shows you have lost the argument.  It's also a double sided argument (once again).  I could say the same thing.  I could say you are not using the part of the brain where God is suppose to fit, instead filling it with all sorts of fairy tales the evolutionists tell you.

Well not this creationists nor others like me.  There's a reason why this is forefront all over the country right now.  Scientists are having a hard time fitting the theory of evolution in without some sort of designer.  Everything has a designer behind it.  Everything. 

I, as well, as many others believe it is a belief system. It's an Atheistic Humanistic Materialist Religion.  It attempts to explain origins with no evidence.   In fact I wrote an article about this called "Is Evolution a Religion" way back.  So you may want to check that out sometime. 

 So in your opinion you don't think so and in my opinion I do think so.  Agree to disagree on this one. 

 

 

Umm, isn't that an oxymoron? Atheism and Religion are polar opposites.

I honestly don't see how evolution could be considered a belief system. I don't worship the mighty Darwin, I don't pray to natural selection...there's no religion to it. None.

It is a way to explain the world around us...much like the theory of gravity and atomic theory. An explanation, not a way to run your life. It doesn't even not meet the standard requirements to be considered a religion...i.e. A way to connect with a sacred power.

~Zoo

I know you'll have a wonderful comeback for this, and no, I can't cite the verse, but I swear that somewhere in the Bible it says something like, "a day for God is 1000 years for man."

So...it time is all relative for God...we can believe that maybe, just maybe, the "1000 years" thing could just mean a really long time. I mean, culturally, 1000 back then was the equivalent of infinity to us...so, I'm thinking evolution is still not completely out of the question.

Well, God + Evolution = Life as we know it makes a lot more sense than God + Magic = Life as we know it.

I mean...accepting the *poof* concept of creationism...is a little hard for me.

~Zoo

"and I don't do this. I don't bash you, even if done in a sorta apologetic way. This happens all the time here. Instead of going after the argument fully, stabs are taking at my character. I don't see the need to do this. It's not productive and shows you have lost the argument. It's also a double sided argument (once again). I could say the same thing. I could say you are not using the part of the brain where God is suppose to fit, instead filling it with all sorts of fairy tales the evolutionists tell you."

I’m sorry; it’s very frustrating to ague with someone who continues to ignore anything contrary to what they believe without any critical analysis or even acknowledgment of the facts presented. You persist in saying that evolution attempts to explain how life began and that it says that we evolved from apes and that there is this heated debate over the validity of evolution among scientist, and a whole host of creationist arguments when all of these have been proven false over and over again to you. Why don’t you be honest and admit that there is no evidence that would lead you to accept anything outside of what scripture tells you so we can just talk about religion.

That's reserved for me and the improper way I use my brain, I suppose?

Who told you that? Real scientists don't try to "fit things in," KFC.



Cool. Who or what is God's designer?

oh' com'on.  Do you guys just like to fight or something?  Also Ock you know the stuff you've slung my way. I don't have to go back and start taking it out and listing it all here now do I?  What I did say was tongue in cheek turning your own words around and giving it back at ya.  I even included a smily face to let you know it was a joke.  After what you've given me I think you're awfully sensitive....geesh. 

He's not hiding.  He's just not being outspoken about his faith when he doesn't have to be.  His lab partners know his faith and they question him all the time. He lives his faith and they have noticed he's not like some of the others.  They are curious and interested in what he has to say but to the community he's in they don't know him.  Until he's published and credible he said he's not worth anything and it would be suicide to talk about such things.  Pretty sad isn't it?  That free speech is so touted but in this profession it's not so much. 

I'm as honest as I know how to be Stubby.  What evidence?  What facts?  Evolution is not a fact.  It's a theory that is still be debating all over the planet.  I'm a Christian who does think Stubby contrary to popular opinion around here.  Where's Lula when I need her?  Gah! 

Obviously it's not proven over and over because there are Scientists on both sides of the fence all with Ph.D's and years of research behind them.  And if it's as you say why is there a movie coming out about all this? 

ok, it can be frustrating....granted.  I'm not ignoring a thing.  You take the scientific evidence and have interpreted it with your world view and so have I.  Why do you assume you have it right and I do not?  We both have experts on both sides here.  The Evolution stuff keeps changing over the years with new findings.  The scripture hasn't changed in thousands of years. 

When they were arguing over the earth being flat or round  there it was all the time in scripture as being round.

 

Because people will make a movie about anything, especially if it's a controversy because controversy=money.



Actually there's a lot of talk of edges and corners, not typically found on your average sphere.



That is the nature of science...which is why creationism is not a science...it never changes.

~Zoo

Hon, there's movies about everything. In fact, there was a much bigger, much more popular documentary I seem to remember recently about global warming, or another MUCH bigger and with lots more support about how the health care system in the US is broken . . .

Do you agree with both of those? Are they both unequivocally right?

Didn't think so.

So maybe there's quite a bit of hyperbole in our friend Ben Stein's movie too. Especially since it looks like he can't get any backing from a real studio, since his preview is done using some unknown flash provider on an unlinked page.

I'm not saying that he might not make some valid points in his film, I'm just saying that if your criteria is the fact that "there (is) a movie coming out" it isn't the most solid criteria in the world.

There was a movie, documentary-style, about a monster attacking NY. Still standing, far as I know. (Granted, I'm on the other side of the world, but I think that would even make news over in the old country . . . ;))

You've misunderstood my intent, KFC.  An insult from you is hardly worth noticing.  What IS worth noticing is when you're hypocritical because you stand on a self erected pedestal of self-righteousness.  You said you don't bash, I'm simply pointing out "Yes, you do" and providing evidence.

And why point it out?  Because when a person's actions don't mesh with their words, it is an indication of their overall credibility.

Why do I see the last sentence as countering the first?

1. Science investigates difficult questions about unknown fields, and scientists are human, so it is inevitable that scientific findings will not be perfect. However, science works by investigating more and more, which means results get checked and rechecked with further findings. The reason some findings change is because they get corrected. This process of correction helps make science one of the most successful areas of human endeavor. The people who cannot be trusted are those who are always right.
   
   
2. As more evidence accumulates, scientific findings become more and more certain. Theories that have withstood several decades of study may undergo more refinement of details, but it is almost inconceivable that they would be overturned completely.

 

1. The word theory, in the context of science, does not imply uncertainty. It means "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" (Barnhart 1948). In the case of the theory of evolution, the following are some of the phenomena involved. All are facts:
   • Life appeared on earth more than two billion years ago;
   • Life forms have changed and diversified over life's history;
   • Species are related via common descent from one or a few common ancestors;
   • Natural selection is a significant factor affecting how species change.
   Many other facts are explained by the theory of evolution as well.
   
   
2. The theory of evolution has proved itself in practice. It has useful applications in epidemiology, pest control, drug discovery, and other areas (Bull and Wichman 2001; Eisen and Wu 2002; Searls 2003).
   
   
3. Besides the theory, there is the fact of evolution, the observation that life has changed greatly over time. The fact of evolution was recognized even before Darwin's theory. The theory of evolution explains the fact.
   
   
4. If "only a theory" were a real objection, creationists would also be issuing disclaimers complaining about the theory of gravity, atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of limits (on which calculus is based). The theory of evolution is no less valid than any of these. Even the theory of gravity still receives serious challenges (Milgrom 2002). Yet the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is still a fact.
   
   
5. Creationism is neither theory nor fact; it is, at best, only an opinion. Since it explains nothing, it is scientifically useless.

References: